Originally posted by NemeBroThis post is basically trash and you know it, feat boy. I used to hear the same nonsense when the video game guys tried calcing feats for Link and ignoring his portrayal in the game.
Do you have proof that God takes away Supergirl's physical strength in fights?It's simple powerscaling lad, try to keep up.
Fighting feats like what? Looking REALLY REALLY cool when he fights? Lmao.
Ah so you're accusing me of using circular reasoning. You have a very poor understanding of the term then.
Circular reasoning is when one's premise and argument are the same thing.
My premise is that Supergirl's random mooks will make Thor's anus prolapse. My argument is that Supergirl's feats are far superior to anything Thor has shown, meaning that she would casually manhandle Thor. Her foes are able to challenge Supergirl, therefore they could best him handily as well.
So we ignore all the speed feats Supergirl has because Thor "looks" faster?
Also, in what fight scene by the way? Because all of Thor's fight scenes portray him as a brawler who doesn't visually use much in the way of super speed in fights. When he fights Loki he isn't moving so fast he can't be seen. Likely because a fight we can't see is boring.
This is a buzzword only a phaggot would use my son.
Skill only matters if the opponents are roughly physical peers. Supergirl is many times Thor's physical superior. His skill means nothing here.
What does this even mean my son?
Let me tell you what you are doing. You are essentially saying that Thor wins because he benefits from a much better budget.
By your logic, Thor should beat Reeves Superman in a fight despite Superman's feats being many orders of magnitude better, simply due to how dated the special effects are.
Tell me if you believe Thor would beat Reeves Superman, so I can dismiss your opinions are being excremental gayness.